For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Saturday, 26 April 2014

There were 18 break ins according to radio prog. They say 5 alleged sexual assaults.Guardian says 18 break ins which are described as linked incidents with 9 sexual assaults and 3 near misses.SY were giving the impression that all 18 were linked - the same motivation therefore, otherwise some were just unrelated burglaries.The link was perceived motivation of intruder as sexual, as nothing taken.You say at the beginning 18 assaults to highlight this and I believe anyone with common sense read it that way.

My Reply

No, she clearly states that 18 girls were assaulted and this, as you yourself hane confirmed, is untrue. Textusa made this rod for her own back by previously protesting about ''intellectual dishonesty'' and claiming that she welcomed the correction. Well, clearly she doesn't welcome it at all. All she had to do was to acknowledge the error and correct it - perfectly reasonable to expect someone to correct an error. Instead of which she has blown it up into this.SY did not give the impression that there were 18 assaults - they stated the number of assaults quite clearly. They also stated that they believed the other break-ins to be linked - that was never in dispute.All that is in dispute is Textusa's incorrect information amd her attempts to shoot the messenger. She has shown herself to be a total hypocrite

We'll see if she publishes itMeanwhile, I am going to take ''Anonymous'' to task on this :

'' You say at the beginning 18 assaults to highlight this and I believe anyone with common sense read it that way''

No. Let's be clear on this. There are two options. Either she made a straightforward error, in which case she should apologise, correct it and have done, or she deliberately overstated the figure to sensationalise the item, which is false and duplicitousSo which is it? You have stated it was the latter, which does her no favours, but which is probably the truth.

Textusa : ''We don’t know under what conditions Portugal decided to reopen the process. We know that it’s not up to the PJ to decide such a thing. PJ is just the “working ant” in charge of the chore.''

The Truth

Portugal's public prosecutors approved the move after a request from officers in Porto who have identified new lines of inquiry, witnesses who were never questioned during the original probe and several issues they want to clarify

A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said: "The Public Ministry has determined the reopening of the inquiry relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann following a request from the Policia Judiciaria."

Ah! Ah! Insane seems to be under the same desperation as SY and Redwood. SY and Red show no interest on ordinary burglars. It is mandatory to be Paedos and sexual assaults and very irrelevant if the act was consumated or not. They don't care about the victims. What is important is to have a limbo of Paedos who enter houses at night to assault children and keep the Mccann's and their helpers out of the scene. You ( Insane) may explain us why on Maddie case the burglar decide to take the children with him and why after all the media coverage and tight control of the police ( including the british) he decide to come back and keep doing more assaults until 2010?

I'm guessing this is the Artist formerly known as the Swingmeister.I have suggested before that if you are addressing your posts to me, you do so in Portuguese and I'll translate them, because that's easier than trying to understand your English.It's not easy figuring out what the fuck you are on about, but you seem to be reading rather a lot of bollocks into a post where I informed Textusa that she had her numbers wrong. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that I think Madeleine was taken by a burglar

Friday, 25 April 2014

''We have said time and time again, and will now repeat, that we like to be corrected. Openly. Transparently.

For logic’s sake. If things are there that need be corrected, then we must do just that. We don’t mind being shown to be wrong, on the contrary, we welcome it. To proceed uncorrected is to base following arguments on false premises.

To correct us is to be our friend. That simple, that true.

We certainly don't want to be accused of intellectual dishonesty.''

All seems quite clear, doesn't it? She likes to be correctedOpenlyTransparently She welcomes the correctionTo proceed uncorrected is to proceed on a false premiseTo correct her is to be her friendShe doesn't want to be accused of ''Intellectual dishonesty''Let's see how good her word is.Earlier today, Textusa posted this, as part of her post entitled ''Blackmail''

''18 sexually assaulted British white 6-10 yr old little girls in Western Algarve.

What next?''

What next indeed. Well what happened next is that I informed Textusa that she was wrong - there were nine attacks on children, not 18. So I corrected her because to correct her is to be her friend. So I informed Textusa of her mistake.

“Whilst not identical, there are many similar aspects to each of the incidents in that in most cases there were no signs of forced entry to the property, NOTHING WAS TAKEN, and the intruder appeared in the early hours of the morning between 02.00hrs and 05.00hrs.”

“These NEW CASES ARE SIMILAR TO A NUMBER OF THE ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED TWELVE OFFENCES whereby a male intruder has gained access to holiday villas occupied by UK families in the Western Algarve.

Of the six new cases, all but one had been reported to the Portuguese police at the time of the offence. FIVE INVOLVE SEXUAL ASSAULTS on children and ONE WAS A ‘NEAR MISS'. Of particular interest to the team is that one of the new sexual assaults took place in Praia da Luz in 2005.”

Guardian 24/4/14James MeikleMadeleine McCann inquiry told of more assaults.Police .... say they now know of 9 sexual assaults and 3 "near misses" on British girls between the ages of 6 and 12 who were on holiday on the Algarve between 2004 and 2006...British investigators are looking at 18 potentially linked incidents in the Algarve, where an intruder entered rooms in holiday flTs occupied by British families. Little, if anything, was stolen. There were in all 9 sexual assaults, 3 near misses and 6 incidents where the intruder was disturbed.

So did Textusa mind being shown to be wrongLittle bit, yesI assisted her by posting a link to the crimewatch video and the precise time where two officers from Operation Grange confirmed that of the first 12 burglaries, only 4 involved attacks on childrenAnd her bad-tempered response? I will highlight my posts and responses in redto make it easier to follow. She wasn't very happy.

And where does it say, in your first cite from a forum, that all those cases involved an assault on a child?

You have got this wrong, and you are going to look a bit of a twerp when you realise that and have to correct yourself

Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 25 Apr 2014 19:43:00******Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Blackmail":

If you are still struggling textusa, to actually get your facts right, why don't the view the youtube clip from Crimewatch in March, where Andy Redwood clearly states that of the 12 break-ins they were already aware, 4 cases involved an assault on a child.

I can send you a link to it if you are still finding it all a bit difficult.

Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 25 Apr 2014 20:04:00******Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Blackmail":

They are probably interested because they believe they were committed by the same man.

Is that difficult to understand?

Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 25 Apr 2014 20:06:00******Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Blackmail":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TdlpA4lF7M&feature=player_embedded

At approximately 4'25'' and again at 7'30''

Then you can correct your post and apologise. Intellectual honesty, remember.

Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 25 Apr 2014 20:35:00******

Now, as you can see, I have posted nothing offensive, merely pointed out her errors and given her the correct informationThis seems to have annoyed her a tad

''We have published these comments so that all readers can make up their minds as to what Insane’s take on the subject is.

SY in March and now in April is making a very clear statement that there was a stranger who presented a real threat to British 6-10 yr old girls in Western Algarve.

What was the threat poised?

Sexual assault.

All of them consummated? We know that at least one was a “near miss”. So no. Does a “near miss” constitute a “sexual assault”? In terms of a potential tourist it certainly does.

The aggressor may only have been allowed to only enter a house in the middle of the night without having, for whatever reason, sexually assaulted any little girl.

But why did he enter that house in the first place?

From what SY has told the general public it wasn’t to steal. It was to sexually assault British white 6-10 yr old girls.

His modus operandi is not to burgle but to sexually assault in the middle of the night minors of a certain gender, certain nationality, certain race and certain age group.

That was his intention. No other.

If he consummated it or not is VERY relevant from the victim’s point of view but ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to a potential visitor who happens to be a parent of a British white 6-10 yr old girl.

Any parent of a British white 6-10 yr old girl who happens to believe in SY immediately strikes off Algarve off a possible holiday destination.

No potential visitor will ask “Yes, there were 18 incidents but really, really how MANY did the man indeed sexually assault the girl? Oh, only 9? Oh, then that's fine. Feel safe to take my daughter then… I would only be worried if he really got to more than 10...”

What the general public perceived from the SY’s words was that all 18 incidents are related with sexual assaults of British white 6-10 yr old girls, which is true, as that, according to SY, was the basis, or motivation, for all 18 incidents.

In none does SY say it was just a burglary. On the contrary, it says that nothing was taken.

Insane tries to divert attention from the two crucial points of the post: SY has launched a campaign of “sexual assaulting against British white 6-10 yr old girls” against the Algarve because, in our opinion, it has been left out of the loop of PJ’s investigation.

It has repeatedly requested and “requested” for it to be “joint” and all has been refused by PJ. But in desperate times one just has to request and “request” over and over again.

Conversation about this subject with Insane is over. He has his own playground as you know''

Now, we were not discussing whether parents would feel the resort was safe. The entire interaction was correcting the glaring and obvious error.And because I corrected the error she withheld my posts and then rambled on with a feeble justification of her own incorrect position.In particular she claimed ''Insane tries to divert attention from the two crucial points of the post''No - I did not enter into any discussion at that point or in my later response to the post.I merely corrected Textusa's error. Like she asked people to do.Shall I remind you again what you said, Textusa?

We have said time and time again, and will now repeat, that we like to be corrected. Openly. Transparently.

For logic’s sake. If things are there that need be corrected, then we must do just that. We don’t mind being shown to be wrong, on the contrary, we welcome it. To proceed uncorrected is to base following arguments on false premises.

To correct us is to be our friend. That simple, that true.

We certainly don't want to be accused of intellectual dishonesty.

You have just demonstrated that not only are you intellectually dishonest you are habitually dishonest.

18 sexually assaulted British white 6-10 yr old little girls in Western Algarve.

Nope - nine children assaulted. I informed Textusa that this figure was wrong. As usual, she declined to post it. More of that ''intellectual honesty'' she is always going on about

What next?

That is the question that is on everyone’s mind. Not only to those interested in the issue but in the general public's mind. Is it bollocks

It’s becoming impossible to determine what is serious and what is a joke.

It’s becoming harder and harder for news reporters to keep a straight face when on the air about this.

Really? Well.. let's have some examples please, complete with video evidence, of any news reporters pissing themselves laughing about this

For them, it’s like having to report as a truest reality that a big bad wolf has been shot by a hunter while lying in grandmother’s bed, dressed in her nightgown, just before he could molest a little white girl that sources close to authorities have identified as being called Little Red Riding Hood. Bedtime stories, Textusa styleThis and what has been said about Maddie in the last few days have the exact same amount of truth and are equally newsworthy.

Now put yourself in their position and try to sell this story to the public, pretending that you’re unaware that on the other side every single person knows how ridiculous every single word you’re saying is.

But is it a joke?

No, we have said time and time again that there’s not a drop of humour in any of this. It’s serious and as there’s a dead human being involved, it’s dead serious.

Well, you seem to be spending a lot of time pissing yourself about it, so perhaps it's just you?

Oh bollocks, lets get rid of some of this self-aggrandising bullshit

In March we had from SY “twelve offences, there were four in Carvoeiro, six in the Vale de Parra, Praia da Gale district and two in Praia da Luz.”

Yes. And your point is?

Now, just a month later, at the end of April we now have 6 more: one in Praia da Luz, one in Carvoeiro, three in Praia da Galé/Vale de Parra/São Rafael (Albufeira region) and one in Vilamoura.

That's right. 12 + 6 = 18. Good to see your maths has improved.

Only the Vilamoura one, according to SY, is “a new offence which has come to light since the March appeal”

That means all five, were already reported to the Portuguese Authorities when the March appeal aired. Why weren’t they announced then?

Okay, I will explain this very slowly for the hard of thinking. They weren't announced because the Met did not know about them

Why only 12 announcements in March when 17 could have been made?

I can't go any slower.They weren't announced because the Met did not know about them . Please try to understand before one of us dies

Says, Redwood, according to CdM, that there may be processes “lost” in local polices stations, not known to the PJ.

What he's implying is that in many a drawer of many local police desks all over the Algarve there may be processes that the PJ hasn't been informed of.

No, HE isn't implying that. It IS implied in the fact that they had not passed on any details of those cases

The world’s most newscast crime ever, millions of euros spent in 2007 on it, a list of all possible paedo suspects made up and investigated and brilliant and competent SY (thanks to Crimewatch’s help, mind you) has been able to discover that local sardine-munching pot-bellied filthy moustached Portuguese local policemen have not taken a minute off their drinking to get their pudgy fingered greasy hands on all these reported processes of sexual molestation of British white 6-10 yr old little girls and then inform the PJ.

Again, your words, not his. If you would get your massive, gigantic head out of your arse for a minute you might realise that it is not uncommon for police to have crimes on file which they have not linked together. Often when Crimewatch airs in the UK, an officer with another force will realise they have something similar in their files. But you go ahead and take it personally if you want to, you daft cow

What disgraceful behaviour then, what brilliant police work now. Oh do fuck offAnd what can one say about a criminal who with the world literally looking down on him still has the gall to continue to prey and sexually assault British white 6-10 yr old little girls in the exact same general area? That is not mocking the police, that is entering the Louvre in broad daylight, steal the Mona Lisa, walk out and come back the next day, also in broad daylight, and steal the painting next to it with the corridor filled with policemen and journalists!

The last case was in 2010 you daft bitch

By the way, if you happen to be British and white and have 6-10 yr old daughters, for heaven’s sake do NOT holiday in Albufeira! A staggering 50% of sexual assaults (9 out of 18) on British white girls aged 6-10 happened there. - More crap maths. There are only 9 in total We cannot make a similar warning to other race/nationalities as we don’t have the statistics of where sexual molestation occurred for British non-white 6-10 yr old little girls or for white or non-white little girls of that age of other nationalities. Sorry. < Oh god, here we goBest keep away from the Algarve altogether.

The good news is that British white girls aged 6-10 still have the whole of the East Algarve to enjoy. Just keep a safe distance from Vilamoura, and you’re fine. No one will enter the unlocked door of the villa you’re staying and sexually molest your daughter in the room next door while you’re sleeping. < You really are as stupid as you seem, aren't you? On “UK CW's 2nd Update” post (21Mar14) we said that what was to be retained were 2 things: death and forensics.

That Maddie had left the apartment dead and that there was compromising DNA in Maddie’s crime scene.< There never was any 'compromising DNA' from the scene. That was simply a lie by you about a baby boyThat was when we were on a 12 on the “sexual assault scale”. Now we’re at 18. So what is there to retain now? < A pocket calculator?Oh for fucks sake, I can't be doing with her International Shit Stirrer routine, let's skip some of it

In our opinion, very simple and very straightforward. The British are telling the Portuguese “You act the way we want you to act and you do what we want you to do OR we will do all we can to ruin your tourism by creating the idea that no British child is safe from sexual predators in the Algarve”.

Pure and simple blackmail.

Racist, xenophobic bullshit from the queen of the bullshitters

It started at 12 and now we’re at 18. That’s a 50% increase in the “threat warning” to British tourists. In a single month. It denotes desperation.

You can't be that much of a fucking idiot. For one, you have doubled the number, and secondly the incidents were already in the Portuguese system. They have not been artificially inflated, shit for brains

Here, we would like to address a few words to just some we know read us regularly. When you decided to embark in calling for the help of a bully to preserve the “touristic” interests that were indeed at stake you should have realised that a bully, like everyone else, is only interested in his own interests. The difference between a bully and “everyone else” is that the bully usually has the power to impose his own interests. If he didn’t have that power, you wouldn’t have called on his help in the first place. The offset is that now you have to abide by his interests as yours have become irrelevant. Both the “touristic” and touristic.

A prize to anyone who can work out what the mad harpie is on about here

Back to all readers.

The problem Britain is facing with the Maddie case is the same one it has refused to face since the last charge of the Light Brigade: it is no longer an Empire. < When was Portugal part of the British Empire? Er, let me see - Never. And what's more it was Portugal annexing half the known world that gave Britain the ideaAs it refuses to accept this reality, it seems to forget another: the sovereignty of another nation is none of Britain’s business. Irrelevant of the numbers of ex-Pats that may live there. < I don't recall Andy Redwood announcing we would fight them on the beaches, TextusaWe don’t know under what conditions Portugal decided to reopen the process. We know that it’s not up to the PJ to decide such a thing. PJ is just the “working ant” in charge of the chore. <Oh don't talk bollocksWe know that the process was reopened. That, in turn, means that there will be results. Whatever they may be, they will have to be.< Are you thinking of getting to the point soon? This is so tedious I am almost looking forward to a picture with some arrowsLet’s for a minute imagine that a humiliated PJ worked for a single goal: to reopen the process.< Must we?

In doing so, it accepted ALL the conditions imposed by the British, just to have the green light to reopen. That they fully agreed not to investigate this or that and agreed that certain issues were off-limits to them. That they agreed to this and then to more. Just to get the process reopened, which happened last November.< Now, what the actual fuck are you on about here? The Portuguese did not need anyone's permission to reopen the case, nor were they asked to agree that 'certain issues were off limits' As far as I can see this is something you have simply invented for the purpose of this post. If you reckon otherwise, where is your evidence of this ridiculous claim?Let’s continue to speculate and imagine that the same humiliated PJ, exactly because it was viciously and aggressively humiliated, has decided to now not keep its end of the bargain.< Oh, so the above is 'speculation' is it? In other words, you are simply making as this up. Is this that 'intellectual honesty' thing again?What can Britain do? It can cry and whine of betrayal but that can only be done privately.< Betrayal of what? Your imaginary agreement? It can exert pressure to have the Portimão team replaced by what it perceives as a tamer Oporto one. But things happened in the area clearly under Portimão’s jurisdiction so no way can the “working ant” be any different.

The same “working ant” that has had to put up with all the xenophobic humiliation handed out to them by the British.

So all that is left to the British is to blackmail Portugal. And that’s what it’s doing. < Oh Christ, she really has lost the plotForcing the Portuguese into forcing the PJ to tell SY what it’s up to.< They don't give a shit, you stupid womanSY, out of the loop, is almost losing its voice from hollering so loud in the press that everything about Maddie should be done “jointly”.

The British who withheld vital and crucial information from the PJ in 2007/2008 now “demand” to know all from the Portuguese.

“Demand” may be too strong of a word. What possible card can they play after this one? 24 British white 6-10 yr old little girls sexually assaulted? 30? 36? Or other multiples of 6...

They do want it to sound like a roar but to trained ears it comes as a whimpering. A desperate whimpering. And we're not talking about our ears, mind you. Ours aren't trained.

Does all this contradict in any way what we have been saying?

It doesn’t. <It appears to have completely escaped your attention that the really big news the other day was that the Portuguese have said NO to the request for a joint investigation team. Everything else is covered by international treatiesWe said and maintain the opinion that Britain wants closure on this subject. It seeks it as of May 2011 and has been unable to achieve it for the reasons we have exposed in many posts.

But wants that closure on its own terms, and that is to reveal the truth up to only where it’s convenient and that can only be done if they’re in control.

And they have clearly lost all control over the “Portuguese” part. And losing that control means losing the control over the “amount” of truth that is to be revealed as well as the timelines in which to reveal it. < Plus the Portuguese said NOThere's nothing to stop the Portuguese from coming up with an inconvenient report any minute. < Hello???? They said NO, TextusaBritain is now back to the 1st Semester of 2008 but with two big differences: the first is that it is out of the loop and the second is now PJ has previously been seriously humiliated on the subject in question.

It wants to go back to that “cooperative” mode of 2007/2008 but it seems that this time PJ seems to be unwilling to do so. < Oh fuck me ragged, has she been living in a cupboard? THEY SAID NO, YOU DOZY HEIFERWhat the British “Imperialistic” minds fail to grasp is that no matter how submissive and cooperative the Portuguese politicians may be (and we’re not saying they are being so at this moment, just raising the possibility) they cannot tamper with the “working ant”.< They said NO. A lot.

They may, as they did back in July 2008, “adjust” the conclusions that the Public Ministry is to reach but they won’t risk tampering in any way with the “field work”.<THEY SAID NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Things in Portugal don’t work in the same way they seem work in Britain and how hard it is for the British to understand that the world doesn’t turn around their bellybutton.<They fucking said No. Now fuck off By the way, if you insult a country, at least have the manners to spell the names of places correctly. It’s Albufeira not Albuferia: The Met will learn to spell when you learn to add up.

Wot - no arrows?

And Jardins Vale de Parra and São Rafael (not Sao Rafeal) aren’t locations. The first is a resort and the latter may be an hotel or a beach, both in Albufeira.

In March, SY said that six sexual assaults had happened in Vale de Parra. In April, it says that three happened in Praia da Galé/Vale de Parra/São Rafael, so we can only assume it was one in each. They are both resorts, oh dozy one

Vale de Parra

British white 6-10 yr old little girls, whatever you do, DO NOT spend your holidays in this hotel!!! Stay clear away from it!

I wouldn't if I were you. That's untrue, and thus libellous. It's okay, though, I am sending them a link to your blog. You're welcome

Why?

Because Scotland Yard states very clearly that SEVEN British white 6-10 yr old little girls were sexually assaulted there!

No they don't. But I am sure you will be hearing from the hotel's lawyers soon.

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

This is the last post for the time being on the topic of Textusa's targeting of a child witness. I think there has been quite enough information about her abuse of this child for people to make up their minds, but I want to leave you with one more exampleIn yet another post where she takes the statement, applies arrows, bows and whistles before declaring it a work of fiction, she says the following

''Either REDACTED didn’t have an ear infection and went to school that day and didn’t see Pimpleman as she say she does, or she did have an ear infection painful enough to stop her from going to school and so didn’t see Pimpleman because she wouldn't have been able to leave her house at the time and manner she describes she does.

It’s as simple as that.

Just out of curiosity, it would be very interesting to have the Police ask the REDACTED School REDACTED for the register of this particular absence, as well as its justification, and verify if REDACTED did indeed miss school on May 2nd 2007. Just a suggestion.

But let’s pretend we’re fooled by the 11 yr old girl.''

(The child described staying off school with earache and later going out to the shops to pick up some medicinal items)

The purpose of her comments seems to be three-foldTo try to convince her followers that the statement was untrueTo get as close as possible to identifying the child, without identifying her. I have redacted her initials and the full name of the school she attended, which Textusa included in the post.To scare the child, by suggesting the involvement of the police

Discussion

What were our concerns upon reading these posts?

Well, first and foremost we were concerned that the girl herself would read them and be distressed. Let's face it, most adults would be distressed to make a witness statement and then find a group of adults - strangers - discussing it on the internet, calling them a liar, so heaven knows how a child would feel, especially as she was portrayed as a victim of sexual abuse by her father and his friends. I could imagine she might be scared, too - she wouldn't necessarily know that Textusa is regarded as a complete joke, she could have been frightened that this rubbish was being taken seriously.

We were also concerned that not only did it amount to bullying of a young child by a group of unknown and unnamed adults, but it could also result in her being bullied by people in her own social circle who had read the same material.

We felt that some of the comments - especially the suggestion that the police should get in touch with her school - were specifically designed to scare the child.

Most of Textusa's output is just the rambling, nonsensical gibbering of the incurably deranged, but when she targets individuals she goes too far.

Naturally, we took this up with her. And of course she binned the posts. So we took the step of alerting a number of child safety organisations, both here and in Portugal, of the nature of the claims Textusa had posted, and advised Textusa of the same. We also advised her that she might want to inform her contributors that she was subject to investigation, before they pitched in and stuck the boot into the child too. She failed to do so.

What has this achieved? Well for obvious reasons, I can't go into details about the communications with these organisations. Suffice to say that I am happy that the appropriate agencies are aware of her activities and that they are best placed to ensure the safety of all concerned.

Some may think this is an over-reaction. Personally, I don't think so. I am sure we have all heard of cases where children have been reduced to absolute despair by online bullying, facebook comments, casually vicious tweets. I wasn't willing to take that chance. Let's face it, it would only take a bully a google or two before they found Textusa's venomous comments.

Sadly, I doubt it will change Textusa's behaviour. She has targeted the child in question, Mrs Fenn, Robert Murat and his family and others whose names came to be in the public domain. They have all become victims of her fragile mental health, and I doubt that will change. What it might do is make people think twice before they join in. This is not a game of Cluedo. These witnesses are real people with real lives. And they do not deserve to have those lives turned upside down because they were unwittingly involved in an event not of their making.

So far we have seen how Textusa began the process of systematically destroying a young child whose evidence did not accord with the Textusa vision of the worldNow we are going to look at what she did next.....Well, what she did next was what she usually doesRoll out the arrowsAfter all, nothing bullshits the posters like a load of arrows and angles.Having rambled on like a brain-damaged trigonometry teacher for several pages, she cuts to the chase

''And you know where this really did happen? I tell you where: inside TS’s 11 yr old mind. That’s where all of the above, and then some, really did happen.''

Right. So we have moved on from ''Her family made her do it''. Now we are in ''she invented the whole thing'' territory. It was ''all in her mind'' ?On she rambles, throwing in some speed calculations - yes, again - and comes up with a theoretical period of time for which she claims the witness could have observed the ''suspect''Then she issues homework to the troopsTake your own 11 year oldGive her the same length of timeSee how much she remembersI guess her 11 year old couldn't remember enough, because :

''I won’t tell you the result I got from my granddaughter. She’s still in her room crying.''

Did you get that? She has bullied her own grandchild into participating in this farce and reduced her to tears. What a star.She then spends a long time ridiculing the child for the number of aspects she remembered, reducing them to bullet points. The aim seems to be to humiliate her by making these seem as numerous as possible, hence we encounter sequences like this:

'' that he had no beard;

- that he had no moustache;

- that he was clean shaved;''

....when of course all the child noticed is that the man was clean-shaved. The rest kind of goes with the territory.She invites her readers to participate in the abuse

'' You don’t believe that she could see that much in so little time? You don’t say…''

Of course, she wants it all ways

'' Please don't forget that we consider TS, as the child she was at the time, to be blameless and unaccountable for any of the actions we've here referred.''

But you said she made up her account. That it was all in her mind. That does not equate with being TOLD to lie. You can't pat her shoulder with the same hand you just used to punch her in the face, Textusa. That's not how life worksAnd what of her followers?Well, by now they were starting to join in. ''Shame!'' they cried, hurriedly explaining that the child wasn't to blame, but fuck it, she was 16 now, she ought to be getting herself out there and shopping her family for the imaginary abuse.So is that it, was she finished now?Sadly, no. As we shall see.......

Textusa's campaign of abuse against an innocent child started with a post entitled, ironically enough, ''A Child Abused''She pictured a young girl cowering with her hand to her face.The picture carried the words ''Child abuse - because things went awfully wrong for daddy's friends''In doing so, she set out her stall and thesis - namely that the child in question had been a victim of abuse at the hands of people within and outside of her immediate family.That false portrayal alone is an act of abuse.What was to come was worse.Needless to say, Textusa didn't like this child's evidence. It did not accord with her view of events.So this is what she did to her. As usual it involved some bullshit bogus analysis of her statement with reference to bus timetables, one way streets and other inconsequential bollocks.

''So why was REDACTED at 08.00, on a school day, walking down Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins?

Because she said she was.

That doesn’t mean that she was. And if she wasn’t, it means she lied.

This is a very sensitive post.

I can tell you it was not pleasant to write, but like when disciplining a child, what must be done has to be done''

So here we go - she has accused an 11 year old child of lying in a witness statement. And she has taken it upon herself to discipline her for it. You may be asking yourself ''What the fuck has it got to do with you, Textusa?'' God knows, I was.She continues

''REDACTED, the witness mentioned in the post, was an 11 yr old child when, on May 9th, 2007, made her statement to the PJ.

And we have strong reasons to believe that she lied. Not only because of what is said on this post, but also what will be said in future ones.

It's difficult to accuse a child of making something up in such a serious matter.

But do remember that you, like us, think that the "Cutting Edge" to be a Mockumentary because you, like us, don't believe the witness statements it was based on.

Including that of a "credible" and "reliable" 11 yr old girl.''

So now we have the direct accusation of lying. What's more, she throws down the ''If I am going down, I am taking you with me'' challenge, in the following:

''But do remember that you, like us, think that the "Cutting Edge" to be a Mockumentary because you, like us, don't believe the witness statements it was based on.''

Don't you find that passage disturbing? I do. She is telling her followers what they believe. Of course what she is really telling her followers is what they are ALLOWED to believe.There's that cult-like behaviour again

She goes on to say that the witness in question was not responsible for her actions, but she is still handing out blame pills, so guess who cops for a handful?

''But whoever put her up to this was, and is. Her parents to start with, and whoever else participated directly or indirectly in having a child go to the police and lie about the events involving the death of another child.''

So now she is accused of lying, and her parents of putting her up to it.She continues:

''

...... today, TS is a 16 yr old teenager, who certainly surfs the net, and most likely has read us from time to time.

And that is the problem. She, unlike me and you, doesn’t read the blog out of passion or curiosity, but out of need, out of fear.

She’s at that age when she’s fully conscious of what she’s done. But unlike all other participants she was too young to be fully conscious of what she was then doing, but too old to be ignorant of what role she did indeed play in this farce.

I hope her parents realize that when they accepted for TS to lie they placed a heavy burden on this child for the rest of her life.''

Thus now she acknowledges that this child may be reading her blog, and tells her she must be afraid. Afraid for the rest of her life. How lovely.And so she concludes

''I say this was clearly abusing a child.''

Well, someone certainly is. And having crapped all over her from a height, Textusa has the gall to say to this child that she regards her as ''absolutely blameless''. A liar and fantasist, you understand, but blameless nonetheless.The first reaction to this post from Textusa's readers was, in the saner quarters, one of shock. The very first reply notes that the name of the child in question is widely circulated. I don't think Textusa even understood how shocked and horrified that poster seemed to be. The rest argued about the bus timetables, or fell into step behind Textusa, referring to the child as a liar. Such is life.So is that it - was she done with the topic, and prepared to allow this child to go about her business unmolested?Oh no. Textusa was just getting warmed up..........

Abuse of children takes many formsIt is not all physical. Much is psychological. I am sure we are all aware of cases where children have become so distressed by bullying and victimisation, usually from their peer group, they they have taken their own lives. Or cases where their spirit has been destroyed by the casual and heartless destruction of their character or behaviour via social media online.So we as adults have the responsibility to ensure the safety of all children, especially those who can't answer back for themselvesThere is nothing amusing about this post. It is the first in a series of posts which will recount this horrendous episodeThese posts will discuss how Textusa set about trying to destroy a child witness in this case. It is by far the most shameful episode in a series of shameful episodes; worse even than her unwarranted abuse and attempted character assassination of a deceased witness for no better reason than she could.When Textusa wrote about this witness she used her initials. This was not out of respect or concern for the witness, but more out of a sense of self-preservation. I am going to attempt to discuss this subject without identifying the witness in question any more than is completely unavoidable.I will not quote from her statements. I will not discuss her evidence other than to discuss Textusa's bogus analysis of it. None of that is important. What is important is that Textusa repeatedly and systematically abused an under age, readily identifiable child for no other reason than to expound her lunatic theories and bullshit analysis.I will draw upon the hideous posts her followers supported her with. This is truly a disturbing group of people. They abused a child because Textusa told them to.Testusa published this abuse without any care, thought or concern for the child she set out to harm. We all know that children can become distressed by even the smallest event in their lives, by not fitting in, by being different.So one can only imagine the potential damage inflicted on a child by being publicly identified and accused repeatedly of being a liar.But we are going to start with the way Textusa tried to rationalise and justify her own behaviour by portraying her victim as a victim of child sexual abuse and by telling her that the adults closest to her were guilty of her abuse.....

We have said time and time again, and will now repeat, that we like to be corrected. Openly. Transparently.

For logic’s sake. If things are there that need be corrected, then we must do just that. We don’t mind being shown to be wrong, on the contrary, we welcome it. To proceed uncorrected is to base following arguments on false premises.

To correct us is to be our friend. That simple, that true.

We certainly don't want to be accused of intellectual dishonesty.

We have always answered our readers' questions and have always corrected our statements when we found ourselves wrong.

We have never pretended to look the other way when something went against our line of thought. On the contrary, we have always confronted contradiction. Just like we're doing today.

Touching, aren't they? A series of declarations straight from the horse's arse itself that it will address any errors. Apologies if any of you were eating breakfast when you read this. The next time we print something so patently untrue it will carry an appropriate health warning. So when a couple of days later she made the following comment, we at NotTextusa wrote to her

Interesting to see an article written in 20May10 which may explain the recent article about SY trying to get details of homeowners.

We think the mystery couple, who apparently RENTED, aren't so much of a mystery to everyone.

If one is to believe Fenn lived in the apartment above 5A, it seems this couple, who were GUESTS, were so disturbed by Maddie’s crying that they exited their own apartment, went around the building (front door unless open ajar needs a key to be opened), walked into 5A via backgate, up the stairs and sliding doors and soothed Maddie and then returned to their apartment and even with all the media hype, never told the police about this.

First obvious detail, is that Maddie cried really, really loud.

So, like we said in our “All Paths Lead to Rome” (20Nov10) it is rather strange that none of the T9 heard Maddie cry on the “checking” they say they did. “Checking” that never happened as there were no Tapas dinners.

http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/11/all-paths-lead-to-rome.html

Second, it begs the question, where does this “mystery couple’s” soothing episode fit in the 75 minutes of Maddie’s uninterrupted crying, according to Mrs Fenn.

Was there other crying episodes? Why did Mrs Fenn report only one?

Now remember, Textusa has TOLD you that there never was any checking on the children. That the children were never left alone. That Mrs Fenn lied about hearing a crying child in order to cover up for the McCanns. That there never was a crying episode. Now she seems to be getting rather confused, posing the questions ''Was (sic) there other crying episodes?'' and ''Why did Mrs Fenn report only one?''She can't have it both ways. She can't declare that something never happened, then ask why it didn''t happen more often. She can't say someone invented a crying spell then ask why she didn't invent more of them.So, with this in mind we wrote to Textusa in the following terms:

Is this the same Mrs Fenn who, according to you, made the entire thing up?Having difficulty keeping your story straight, Textusa?

She didn't reply, and she didn't publish the post. So we wrote to her again. Three times. Each time she ignored us.Perhaps Textusa would like to explain how this fits in with her mantra that:

''To correct us is to be our friend''

The truth is that Textusa's ''logic'' is so fragile that this happens again and again. She forgets what it is that she is supposed to believe, and so trips herself upThe giveaway is the failure to publish posts. If she didn't believe she had got it wrong, she wouldn't hesitate to publish them.But then, this is fairly typical of her behaviour and that of her tag-alongs on this site. They once spent weeks discussing the shape size and appearance of a table they all claimed didn't exist.

Monday, 21 April 2014

Textusa has listed all the posts where she persecuted Mrs Fenn while she was still alive, and continues to besmirch her memory to this dayThey total 15That's a serious obsession, in my opinionThey are so numerous because more than any other witness, Mrs Fenn does not fit the ''They were all swingers'' backstory. So instead she sets out to discredit a defenceless woman who has done no-one any harmWhat a bitch.

Interesting to see an article written in 20May10 which may explain the recent article about SY trying to get details of homeowners.

We think the mystery couple, who apparently RENTED, aren't so much of a mystery to everyone.

If one is to believe Fenn lived in the apartment above 5A, it seems this couple, who were GUESTS, were so disturbed by Maddie’s crying that they exited their own apartment, went around the building (front door unless open ajar needs a key to be opened), walked into 5A via backgate, up the stairs and sliding doors and soothed Maddie and then returned to their apartment and even with all the media hype, never told the police about this.

First obvious detail, is that Maddie cried really, really loud.

So, like we said in our “All Paths Lead to Rome” (20Nov10) it is rather strange that none of the T9 heard Maddie cry on the “checking” they say they did. “Checking” that never happened as there were no Tapas dinners.http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/11/all-paths-lead-to-rome.html

Second, it begs the question, where does this “mystery couple’s” soothing episode fit in the 75 minutes of Maddie’s uninterrupted crying, according to Mrs Fenn.

How could Mrs Fenn listen to a child crying loudly for such a long time, when all she needed to do was call the OC 24 hour reception? The child could have been injured. Or she could have gone down to check,in case there was somebody with her. I find this story difficult to believe.

Mrs Fenn didn't exactly tell the truth.. She Initially told the press it was nonsense that she had said anything to police, after making a statements then fails to report the soothing couple incident or Paynes balcony appearance, as recently revealed by Mr Amaral, when she did make her statement.What made her decide to say more later?

Don't you think it's strange that no-one has mentioned that according to Textusa's theory, Mrs Fenn made the entire thing up, that there never was any crying, that the children were never left unattended? Very odd that no-one has mentioned this. Because after all, Textusa, who never wants to be accused of intellectual dishonesty, would certainly not have deleted such a post, would she?

So I wonder what happened to my post, shown below, which she appears to have mislaid?

Is this the same Mrs Fenn who, according to you, made the entire thing up?Having difficulty keeping your story straight, Textusa?

Or this one

Mrs Fenn said nothing of the kind to the press. She stated on camera, on the only occasion that she spoke at all, that she had never spoken to the press, and that it was entirely fabricated.Nor did she at any point claim to have seen or spoken to this hypothetical ''soothing couple''. Perhaps you can provide a reference to Mr Amaral claiming this, and if he did we can discuss why he waited until 6 years had gone by, and Mrs Fenn had passed away, to mention it?

I'm sure her ''Intellectual honesty'' will catch up with her. Otherwise it looks like she is just ducking the difficult questions. She does this a lot, usually claiming that she has binned my posts for bad language. This is, of course, rarely the case. She bins posts which put her on the spot, no more no less.

When Textusa first decided to propagate her mad theory that every guest, every employee and every resident of PdL was part of a huge conspiracy with the McCanns to hide the fact that the resort was a haven for swingers, she was left with the problem of how to assimilate the local residents such as the charming and refined Mrs Fenn, who hardly fit the debauched vision she had conjured.No problem - she would merely set about assassinating her character instead,I notice this has been raised on the JH forum, so I thought I would point you at a couple of posts which might help.In essence, though, Textusa believes that Mrs Fenn acted as a sort of false witness, to give credence to the idea that the McCanns neglected their children by leaving them alone at night. She claims Mrs Fenn said she heard Madeleine crying to give weight to this, because they were actually not at dinner at the tapas - on account of how they didn't have a table big enough - but away shagging each other instead. Hey, don't have a go at me, it's her fucking theory, not mine. As usual, she went about ''establishing'' this with some crazy, bullshit posts full of arrows. I suggest you have a butchers at the following. The ''Colouring Hats'' one is interesting, not least because of her unprovoked and vicious attack on a poster from another site, but also because of her ''if you are not with me, you must be against me'' declaration, far too reminiscent of how cults operate to be comfortable reading.So, for those wanting to know how all this hatred of Mrs Fenn started, I suggest reading the followinghttp://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/colouring-hats-with-crayon.html

Incidentally, it is always worth reading through the comments attached to each blog entry, for gems such as this from Textusa

''from now on any “Fenn whitewashing“ comment will either be censored or not be published at all.''

In case it's not immediately apparent, that was her way of informing the troops that any posts disagreeing with her about Mrs Fenn or seeking to defend her would not be published. So much for that ''intellectual honesty'' she likes to pride herself upon.Whilst scanning through these posts, I noticed an old comment of mine. I thought I would re-post it here as it seems somewhat prophetic

You have a theory about what happened to Madeleine McCann. It's not a theory for which you have any evidence. You actually describe what you think happened in almost pornographic terms.

If that wasn't disturbing enough, you have indulged in a completely reprehensible and paranoid character assassination of any witness whose statement doesn't support your theory. And you do all this to the fawning appreciation of a little gang of admirers.

It is thanks in no small part to people like you, Textusa, that the McCanns enjoy the support they do, and have never been properly called to account for their behaviour. Your paranoia and mental instability is evident to anyone reading your flights of fancy. And it doesn't just extend to libelling innocent witnesses - you are now indulging in full blown fantasies about the people who leave comments on your blog, too.

You don't like anyone disagreeing with you, do you, Textusa? And why is that? It's because you're a narcissist. You have a hugely overblown sense of your own importance. In fact, you fit the criteria for a fanatic type of Narcissist, with typical paranoid features, to an absolute T. You are using this case and this blog purely for the purposes of self-reinforcement and developing your grandiose fantasies.

Know who else does that, Textusa? I'll give you a clue - he used to write a blog, too.

In the past year I have seen you write in the most appalling terms about people who come to this process merely as witnesses. People who saw something or heard something or knew something and came forward to say so. What the hell do you think gives you the right to speak about these people in such terms, Textusa? You have no such right - but that doesn't matter to you, because the most important thing to you is your theory, and your continual self-aggrandisement.

Your blog appeals to one type of person in particular - shallow, stupid, unable to think for themselves. They come here for their little frisson of excitement, and play up to your constant need for reassurance. They are, in essence, the friends who encourage you in your destructive behaviour because none of them care enough to say ''stop''. Why would they? They get their vicarious thrills from you.

In your last post you said ''a trademark of this character, how (s)he claims to loath the McCanns so much, but just loathes slightly more all those that accuse, in his/her opinion, innocent people.''

The really sad part, Textusa, is that you can't even see what a sad, self regarding comment that is. You see nothing wrong in accusing innocent people, and lets not pretend that their innocence is a matter of opinion. They are accused of no crime. Except by you.

The fact that you are prepared to accuse innocent people of appalling crimes simply to promote your own twisted theory does indeed make me loathe you even more than I loathe the McCanns. You are a bully, Textusa. You attack those who can't fight back. You are poorly informed when it comes to this case, and don't appear to have done your research properly, obviously far too busy with your little pictures and graphics.

People are catching on, Textusa. The more insane your contributions grow, the more people realise how little grasp on reality you retain. You have seen the comments

You won't take any notice of this, of course. And you certainly won't publish it - but that's okay. It will find a home elsewhere.

As for you, there is little point suggesting you get the help you so obviously need - the illusion of omnipotence you hang onto has too firm a grip for you to let go of your own accord, and let's be honest it's all that keeps you from facing whatever it is that is so lacking in your life.

Your posts will continue to be challenged, Textusa. Doesn't matter if you publish them or not - like I said, they will find a home regardless. You just carry on being the laughing stock you have become, okay?

Sunday, 20 April 2014

Evening campersI want to reprise an earlier post, in which an eminently sensible and logical poster who decided to remain anonymous took Textusa to the cleaners. As a reminder, this is the story so far

What about Jane Tanner? If she's in on the cover-up why would she time her sighting of a man with a child at 09.15 on 3rd May, yet only report it the following day - the day AFTER McCann was wandering the streets with her daughter? Why?

Textusa to poster

''First, thank you for resubmitting your comment NOT published at 13 Apr 2014 19:12:00. As you see, if you submit comments in a respectful and polite manner they will be published.

Textusa 2 seconds later to same poster

''Second, by stating “If she's [Tanner] in on the cover-up” you openly reveal the true intent of your question and exactly on which side of the fence you sit on. Not many of you out there so far from the fence on that side as it's common understanding that Jane is up to Rob's borrowed fleece involved in the cover-up, as much as any other T9.

Yes, I can feel that politeness and respect positively oozing from her reply ........

Remember it?GoodIf you want to read the whole discussion you will find it herehttp://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/speed.htmlIt well illustrates Textusa's rudeness to anyone who uses logic and commonsense to challenge her loopy, bargain basement conspiraciesThe story continues.......

By your own reckoning, if McCann was parading Tanner's daughterthrough the streets at 10pm, and Kate sounded the alarm then yes - they raised the alarm when Mccann was not present. This is what you suggest, isn't it?

However we say the alarm, at 22.00, was raised prematurely (exactly because Gerry was out and about) while you said the alarm, at 22.00, was raised according to plan, which, in your opinion, was successfully executed.

So will ask again if, according to you, the T9 plan was to raise the alarm while Gerry was out?

It's hard to see how a conspiracy that involved meticulous planning between a group of people could go so pearshaped at the exact time of execution ie. 10 pm. By success I mean McCann had been spotted - job done. How could Kate have cocked up so badly by raising the alarm prematurely. Why do you believe this, I find it difficult to fathom.